Has Netanyahu joined Kadima?

Wonderful and every one of them are unacceptable to the Palestinians who are insisting on the 2002 Saudi Plan as a basis for negotiation - to recap:
The Arab League members unanimously endorsed the peace initiative on March 27, 2002 It consists of a comprehensive proposal to end the entire Arab-Israeli conflict. It provides in a relevant part:
“(a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon; (b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194. (c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. In return the Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace.”
Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia made a speech to the Arab League on the day of its adoption saying that:
“In spite of all that has happened and what still may happen, the primary issue in the heart and mind of every person in our Arab Islamic nation is the restoration of legitimate rights in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.... We believe in taking up arms in self-defence and to deter aggression. But we also believe in peace when it is based on justice and equity, and when it brings an end to conflict. Only within the context of true peace can normal relations flourish between the people of the region and allow the region to pursue development rather than war. In light of the above, and with your backing and that of the Almighty, I propose that the Arab summit put forward a clear and unanimous initiative addressed to the United Nations security council based on two basic issues: normal relations and security for Israel in exchange for full withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories, recognition of an independent Palestinian state with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital, and the return of refugees

The latter further clarified as being the return of all refugees including their descendants who wish to return without restriction. Hamas' foreign minister Mahmoud al-Zahar said in June 2006 that the organization rejects the initiative. Prime Minister Ismail Haneya said on October 2006 that the "problem with the Arab peace initiative is that it includes recognition of the state of Israel, the thing that the Palestinian government rejects" and dismissed it. That month, Mahmoud al-Zahar declared unequivocally: "Hamas will never change its position regardless of the pressure's intensity" and "We will never recognize the Arab initiative".
We will see.

Anyone taken in by all this is encouraged to read this:

http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/21129

Seems to me that you think peace is some kind of favour Israel can do its neighbours. It's nit. It's in Israel's interests to do a deal and the 2002 plan is as good a basis as any. And it is a plan, because I haven't noticed any Israeli government taking any initiative lately.
The only peace in bibisind is one that can keep him in cohoots with his extreme right wing and fundamentalist political partners.

The Jewish Press? Didn't they support the late unlamented Meir kahane, she'yisaref?

Goodness anything that does not support your worldview is suspect - talk about not being open to new ideas it's pointless you arguing about something you have not read. The Saudi Plan calls for Israel's destruction in stages and even that is not supported by Hamas who are at least consistent in their hatred for Israel if nothing else. The trouble with Bibi's plan is that it is our red lines we can't go further than that for to do so will be suicide but the Arabs like they did in 2000 with Barak and 2008 with Olmert take that as the starting point for negotiations. I like your joke about peace being something of a favour we can do for our neighbours - yeah like we love our children being in the army for 3-5 years while their counterparts in the rest of the free world are getting on with their lives.As they say if the Arabs put down their arms there will be peace if Israel puts down its arms the Jews will get slaughtered.

BTW
The Jewish Press is the largest independent weekly Jewish newspaper in the United States. The paper, founded by Rabbi Sholom Klass (1916-2000) and Mr. Raphael Schreiber (1885-1980), debuted as a national weekly in January 1960 and quickly won a following for its eclectic mix of Jewish news, political and religious commentary, the largest Jewish classifieds and special features -- including puzzles, games and illustrated stories -- for young readers.
For five decades now The Jewish Press has championed Torah values and ideals from a centrist or Modern Orthodox perspective. The paper has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the State of Israel, Soviet Jewry, and agunot (women whose husbands refuse to grant them a religious divorce), and has taken the lead in urging a greater communal openness in addressing domestic violence and other social ills.
Known for its editorial feistiness, The Jewish Press was politically incorrect long before the phrase was coined. The paper over the years has been home to colorful and thought-provoking writers like Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis, Dr. Morris Mandel, Louis Rene Beres, Steven Plaut, Marvin Schick, Rabbi Dovid Goldwasser, Phyllis Chesler, Rabbi David Hollander, Paul Eidelberg, the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, as well as former editor Arnold Fine and current senior editor Jason Maoz.

Nice cut and paste there...as well as a nice bit of sloganeering.

Nope just giving some background since you mentioned it hosted the late Rabbi Meir Kahane. I hold no candle for the Jewish Press.

No doubt you believe that anything that does not support your worldview isn't suspect. Pull the other one, Eldad.

Joe...and doesn't control the Jordan valley ? That isn't going to happen. Another Israeli delusion.

Depends what you mean by control, Jon. I think in the short- to medium-term Israeli troops may indeed have to patrol some parts of the Jordan Valley. Not settlements, mind you, but military patrols and perhaps early-warning stations.
What the far right don't like being reminded of, however, is that in effect Jordan is a country-sized buffer-zone for Israel. Under the terms of the peace deal with the Hashemite Kingdom, any third party's army entering Jordan without Israel's consent is casus belli.
So the far right's argument that it needs the valley for security purposes is fallacious.

I'll buy that

Oh Joe such naivety. Why would Iran for example need another country to station its troops on Palestinian soil in order to attack Israel. The Iranians will just fly the stuff into the brand spanking new Gaza airport or any other airport the Palestinians build and who will stop them - they will be a sovereign nation and entitled to free airspace. Because of course they will be no Israeli blockade in place to stop it. If the Palestinian State has sovereignty who will be able to stop it from arming itself whatever it may say on a piece of paper, that is what sovereignty entails. You speak as though the Arabs have accepted a Jewish State in the Middle East they have not and until they do there is nothing to talk about. Anyway it is not only the right who want a presence in the Jordan valley the IDF have indicated it is a necessity.
Again although I doubt you'll read here is a cogent argument that the presence or non-presence of settlements has nothing to do with allowing the Palestinians to have sovereignty i.e. that it will basically be Israel's death warrant - but it appears you are prepared to sacrifice us for a bit of peace and quiet in the UK - or so it would seem.
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=217448

Poor, Israel, eh "advis3r"? Poor, little, unprotected, weak, Israel. Ye of little (or no) faith.
I get the impression that the Israeli far right and its supporters abroad are scared, absolutely petrified, of peace, because they know with peace they will lose their raison d'etre -- spreading fear and hatred.
Why are you so scared? Do you fear the fact that Israel might actually have to look inward and determine what it means to be a Jewish and democratic state? Do you fear losing your bogeymen/women? What is it?

Just listening to Obama's speech. That must scare you rigid, "Adviser". A person speaking of hope, not hatred... and willing to help hope, not hatred.

Time to drop the shackles of the past and embrace hope for the future...
As P. Diddy says: "Don't hate - appreciate and congratulate"

Yes we are concerned and with reason. Despite all the wonderful talk from the whole world in which you and Otway have such faith Iran's first nuclear plant has gone live.
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/05/first-iranian-nuclear-power-plant-begins-...
but of course living in the UK and pontificating in your armchair what Israel should or should not do is what you are all about.
Unfortunately you have it the wrong way round it is not a question of giving up or not giving up land it is a question of Arab acceptance of a sovereign Jewish presence in the Middle East. Hatred? Just listen to what Bibi said who you have quoted above with approval and compare that with what comes out of Gaza and Ramallah.

I think it's pretty clear that the Israeli far right and its supporters here have little or no faith in Israel's abilities, are scared rigid of peace, are seething in their hatred and want to spread their hatred and fear. In that they have very strange bedfellows among Islamic fundamentalists and Christian rapture merchants.
Just try and remember that Israel's anthem is Hatikva, not shtey gadot le'yarden. If Israel doesn't remember that, it'll soon be Biladi, Biladi.